6 research outputs found
Development of Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania
No full textAbstract
A review of technologies and practices used for exploration and production of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania is given while shedding light on the entire process of natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania. Entailing drilling and completions operations, production operations and transportation of natural gas tied together with regulation and policy in Pennsylvania. Horizontal drilling technology is used in shale play development along with well stimulation which is also needed to produce economically from these wells. This is achieved through hydraulic fracturing. Water is predominantly used for this but the use of other fluids is also being explored. For the transport of natural gas a network is present in Pennsylvania but gathering stations and other infrastructure needs to be setup. This is not easy in Pennsylvania due to the hilly nature of the region. Most common practices are developed locally as is the case in the Marcellus, with local operators and not the big majors heading the development of the Shale play but even they used techniques applied in the Barnett Shale to great success in the Marcellus Shale which goes to prove that a lot can be gained from other similar plays. The history of this region in producing natural gas is more than a hundred years old and so a lot has done in this region with regards to experimentation and technology additions in producing natural gas. Apart from producing and transportation of natural gas, another important aspect is regulation and policy which is strict when it comes to Pennsylvania. Along with this it would be beneficial for companies to develop good relations with residents in the area as these wells typically produce for long periods of time. Typical land restoration projects are now mandatory which all adds upto a higher overall cost of energy. To summarize all the factors needed to produce natural gas in this region economically and safely with leaving as small as a footprint as possible is explored.</jats:p
Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, then President of India, felicitating Dr. P. L. Vaidya, on the occasion of the conclusion of the Mahābhārata project, 22 September 1966
No full textDr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, then President of India, felicitating Dr. P. L. Vaidya, on the occasion of the conclusion of the critical ediition of the Mahābhārata on September 22, 1966. After 48 years & a critical study of 1259 manuscripts, the project was completed in 1966.
After V.S. Sukthankar, S.K. Belvalkar was appointed as the general editor on April 1, 1943. Upon his retirement, P. L. Vaidya was appointed as General Editor of the project in 1961, while R. N. Dandekar became the joint general editor in 1957
The Mahābhārata. Edited by V. S. Sukthankara and S. K. Belvalkar. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. Fascicule 17. H. D. Velankar and V. G. Paranjpe, 1956. Fascicule 30. R. N. Dandekar, 1956.
No full textA Note on Bhagavadgītā II.20
No full text110006483155Bhagavadgita II.20 reads as follows: na jayate na mriyate va kaddcin na 'yam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah/ajo nityah sdsvato 'yam purano na hanyate hanyamane sarfre//The gerund bhutva in the second pada has been construed and translated in a variety of ways: (1) It has been rendered as a present perfect, present, or past tense, which is denied by the negation na at the beginning of the pada. Translators who have thus construed the verse include scholars such as Wilkins (1785): 'It is not a thing of which man may say, "It hath been [...]"'; Davies (1893): 'it has never been brought into being'; Deussen (1906): nicht ist er entstanden ; Hartmann (1919): Es ensteht nicht; Hill (1928): 'he came not into being'; and Zaehner (1969): 'never did it come to be'; Gotshalk (1985): 'He has had no coming-to-be in the past, and will have no coming-to-be in the future'. (2) The negative particle na at the beginning of the second pada is taken as belonging syntactically to the first pada, and the gerund retains its original function. Such an understanding appears in Lorinser (1896): nicht, einst entstanden, wird er sein auch wieder ; and in Telang (1882): 'nor, having existed, does he exist no more'. (3) The first na is construed as denying the whole sentence bhutva bhavita [...] na. In such an interpretation, bhavita na is understood in the sense of 'ceas [ing] to be'. For example, Besant (1905): 'nor having been, ceaseth he any more to be' ; Belvalkar (1939): 'nor, having been once "been", is he once again not going to "be "' ; Edgerton (1944): 'nor, having come to be, will he ever more come not to be' ; Radhakrishnan (1948): 'nor having (once) come to be, will he again cease to be'. Let me add here Edgerton's important remark concerning his own translation of bhutva which is not certain since it would seem to imply that the eternal Atman, the subject of the sentence, has an origination or beginning in time. But Gotshalk actually criticises Edgerton's hesitation here. (4) The na at the beginning of the pada is taken as negating bhutva and bhavitd na respectively. Furthermore, bhutva is construed as being the equivalent of a perfect. Thus, Garbe (1921): er ist nicht geworden, noch wird in Zukunft nicht mehr sein. Additionally, we must also mention that there are quite a few translations, not listed here, which choose to render the stanza in a free style. Now, a brief look at Sankara's commentary, the Bhagavadgitdbhasya, can solve the problem easily. His interpretation is that the second pada should be read as na'yam bhutva abhavita va na bhuyah. This is further explained as ayam atma bhutva [...] pascad abhavita [...] na bhuyah punas [...] He further adds that va and na imply an alternative sentence: ayam atma 'bhutva va bhavita dehavan na bhuyah punas [...]. Therefore, according to Sankara, the second pada presupposes two basic sentences, i.e., bhutva abhavita and abhutva bhavita, both of them being negated. We actually find a parallel of these two sentences in a Buddhist scripture called the Paramarthasunyatasutra (also extant in Chinese translation, i.e., the Di yiyi kong jing第一義空經), belonging to the Ksudrakagama. The Buddhist parallel reads: iti hi caksur abhutva bhavati, bhutva ca pratigacchati. (In its most common Chinese rendering, the main part of the sentence goes as :本無今有,己有還無). This formulation is often cited in Sanskrit Buddhist literature (as well as in the corresponding Chinese translations and commentarial texts). If we accept Sankara's commentary, which I find correct, the second pada can be construed as follows: na 'yam [abhutva bhavita] bhutva bhavita va na bhUyah. The first na would thus deny both [abhutva bhavita] and bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah, while na in the latter sentence would negate the preceding bhavita, the sense being 'to cease to exist in the future'. The author of the Bhagavadgita omitted abhutva bhavita (which is enclosed within square brackets above) and added va [...] bhuyah instead, without any change in the basic meaning. We can thus conclude that the second pada in this stanza of the Bhagavadgita actually criticises the Buddhist idea expressed in the Paramarthasunyatasutra. Finally, let us recall the well-known fact that Bhagavadgita II.20 has a parallel in the Kathaka Upanisad (I.2.18): na jayate na mriyate va vipascin na 'yam kutascin na babhuva kascit/ajo nityah sasvato 'yam puravco na hanyate hanyamane sarire//The second pada differs, but the rest of the stanza is almost identical, with the sole exception of vipascin instead of kadacin. Actually, it would seem that the author of the Bhagavadgita intended to criticise the Buddhist standpoint and therefore had no other choice but to modify the second pada because na'yam kutascin in the Kathaka Upanisad stanza is too similar to the sentence na kutascid agacchati in the ParamarthasunyatasUtra. Should we then conclude that the purport of Kathaka Upanisad I.2.18 is Buddhist? The answer should be 'no'! The Kathaka Upanisad itself actually criticises the Buddhist position as it appears in an earlier stage of development. It would seem that the second pada of Kathaka Upanisad I.2.18 intends to refute an idea as found in, for instance, the Paccayasutta (SN II 27,6-8): aham nu kho smi. no nu kho smi. kim nu kho smi. katham nu kho smi. aham nu kho satto kuto agatto, so kuhimgami bhavissati. The question of the relation between the Bhagavadgita and Buddhism has long been debated and remained largely unsettled. The findings above will prove that the author of the Bhagavadgita was certainly familiar with the Paramarthasunyatasutra, whose doctrines he rejects. This should actually be regarded as the first recorded instance in the history of Classical Indian philosophy in which a Buddhist source is clearly referred to and criticised.departmental bulletin pape
『バガヴァッド・ギーター』(II,20) 注解
No full text110006483155Bhagavadgita II.20 reads as follows: na jayate na mriyate va kaddcin na 'yam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah/ajo nityah sdsvato 'yam purano na hanyate hanyamane sarfre//The gerund bhutva in the second pada has been construed and translated in a variety of ways: (1) It has been rendered as a present perfect, present, or past tense, which is denied by the negation na at the beginning of the pada. Translators who have thus construed the verse include scholars such as Wilkins (1785): 'It is not a thing of which man may say, "It hath been [...]"'; Davies (1893): 'it has never been brought into being'; Deussen (1906): nicht ist er entstanden ; Hartmann (1919): Es ensteht nicht; Hill (1928): 'he came not into being'; and Zaehner (1969): 'never did it come to be'; Gotshalk (1985): 'He has had no coming-to-be in the past, and will have no coming-to-be in the future'. (2) The negative particle na at the beginning of the second pada is taken as belonging syntactically to the first pada, and the gerund retains its original function. Such an understanding appears in Lorinser (1896): nicht, einst entstanden, wird er sein auch wieder ; and in Telang (1882): 'nor, having existed, does he exist no more'. (3) The first na is construed as denying the whole sentence bhutva bhavita [...] na. In such an interpretation, bhavita na is understood in the sense of 'ceas [ing] to be'. For example, Besant (1905): 'nor having been, ceaseth he any more to be' ; Belvalkar (1939): 'nor, having been once "been", is he once again not going to "be "' ; Edgerton (1944): 'nor, having come to be, will he ever more come not to be' ; Radhakrishnan (1948): 'nor having (once) come to be, will he again cease to be'. Let me add here Edgerton's important remark concerning his own translation of bhutva which is not certain since it would seem to imply that the eternal Atman, the subject of the sentence, has an origination or beginning in time. But Gotshalk actually criticises Edgerton's hesitation here. (4) The na at the beginning of the pada is taken as negating bhutva and bhavitd na respectively. Furthermore, bhutva is construed as being the equivalent of a perfect. Thus, Garbe (1921): er ist nicht geworden, noch wird in Zukunft nicht mehr sein. Additionally, we must also mention that there are quite a few translations, not listed here, which choose to render the stanza in a free style. Now, a brief look at Sankara's commentary, the Bhagavadgitdbhasya, can solve the problem easily. His interpretation is that the second pada should be read as na'yam bhutva abhavita va na bhuyah. This is further explained as ayam atma bhutva [...] pascad abhavita [...] na bhuyah punas [...] He further adds that va and na imply an alternative sentence: ayam atma 'bhutva va bhavita dehavan na bhuyah punas [...]. Therefore, according to Sankara, the second pada presupposes two basic sentences, i.e., bhutva abhavita and abhutva bhavita, both of them being negated. We actually find a parallel of these two sentences in a Buddhist scripture called the Paramarthasunyatasutra (also extant in Chinese translation, i.e., the Di yiyi kong jing第一義空經), belonging to the Ksudrakagama. The Buddhist parallel reads: iti hi caksur abhutva bhavati, bhutva ca pratigacchati. (In its most common Chinese rendering, the main part of the sentence goes as :本無今有,己有還無). This formulation is often cited in Sanskrit Buddhist literature (as well as in the corresponding Chinese translations and commentarial texts). If we accept Sankara's commentary, which I find correct, the second pada can be construed as follows: na 'yam [abhutva bhavita] bhutva bhavita va na bhUyah. The first na would thus deny both [abhutva bhavita] and bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah, while na in the latter sentence would negate the preceding bhavita, the sense being 'to cease to exist in the future'. The author of the Bhagavadgita omitted abhutva bhavita (which is enclosed within square brackets above) and added va [...] bhuyah instead, without any change in the basic meaning. We can thus conclude that the second pada in this stanza of the Bhagavadgita actually criticises the Buddhist idea expressed in the Paramarthasunyatasutra. Finally, let us recall the well-known fact that Bhagavadgita II.20 has a parallel in the Kathaka Upanisad (I.2.18): na jayate na mriyate va vipascin na 'yam kutascin na babhuva kascit/ajo nityah sasvato 'yam puravco na hanyate hanyamane sarire//The second pada differs, but the rest of the stanza is almost identical, with the sole exception of vipascin instead of kadacin. Actually, it would seem that the author of the Bhagavadgita intended to criticise the Buddhist standpoint and therefore had no other choice but to modify the second pada because na'yam kutascin in the Kathaka Upanisad stanza is too similar to the sentence na kutascid agacchati in the ParamarthasunyatasUtra. Should we then conclude that the purport of Kathaka Upanisad I.2.18 is Buddhist? The answer should be 'no'! The Kathaka Upanisad itself actually criticises the Buddhist position as it appears in an earlier stage of development. It would seem that the second pada of Kathaka Upanisad I.2.18 intends to refute an idea as found in, for instance, the Paccayasutta (SN II 27,6-8): aham nu kho smi. no nu kho smi. kim nu kho smi. katham nu kho smi. aham nu kho satto kuto agatto, so kuhimgami bhavissati. The question of the relation between the Bhagavadgita and Buddhism has long been debated and remained largely unsettled. The findings above will prove that the author of the Bhagavadgita was certainly familiar with the Paramarthasunyatasutra, whose doctrines he rejects. This should actually be regarded as the first recorded instance in the history of Classical Indian philosophy in which a Buddhist source is clearly referred to and criticised
A Philosophy of Ritual Chants : How was the Earliest Upanisad born?
No full textウパニシャッドは, 古代インドの宗教儀礼文献であるヴェーダの中に現れた一群の哲学書である。その最古のものと考えられるのが, 本稿で取り上げる『ジャイミニーヤ・ウパニシャッド・ブラーフマナ』(Jaiminīya-Upanisad-Brāhmana [JUB])である。ヴェーダ祭式の歌詠部門(サーマ・ヴェーダ)に所属するジャイミニーヤ派の文献として, 祭式歌詠(サーマン)に関する哲学的な思弁を主な内容としている。JUBは, 先行するブラーフマナ文献のように個々の祭式や歌詠を具体的に記述することはほとんどなく, 祭式や歌詠をめぐって, あるいはそれらを離れて, 再生説を含むさまざまな哲学的思弁を展開している。同じくサーマ・ヴェーダ所属のカウトゥマ・ラーナーヤニーヤ派の『チャーンドーギヤ・ウパニシャッド』と, テキストと内容において近い関係にある。ジャイミニイヤ派内ではウパニシャッドとして扱われているが, ヴェーダの学派伝統の外にあってウパニシャッドを聖典として奉じる後世のヴェーダーンタ学派からは, 『ケーナ・ウパニシャッド』の部分(JUB 4.10.1–4 [4.18–21])を除いてウパニシャッドとは見なされなかった。この文献がヴェーダの文献成立史の中で最初のウパニシャッドとしてどのように生まれてきたか, その誕生の全体像を描くことが本稿の目的である。そのために, 以下の論点について順に考察していく。1. この文献は何を中心テーマとしているのか。2. それ以前の文献ではその中心テーマは扱われていたのか, いなかったのか。3. この文献がそれを中心テーマとする背景はなにか。4. この文献はその中心テーマからどのような思想を展開したのか。5. この文献を作り出したのがなぜこの学派(ジャイミニーヤ派)であったのか。6. この文献を最初のウパニシャッドと見なしうる根拠は何か。The Upanis. ads are philosophical texts produced in the Veda, a huge complex of ancient Indian ritual texts. The Jaiminīya-Upanis. ad-Brāhman. a [JUB] is the earliest of the texts which were produced as Upanis. ads in the history of Vedic literature. The JUB as a text belonging to the Jaiminīya school of the Sāmaveda, `the knowledge (veda) of sacred ritual chants (sāman)' has philosophical speculations about the ritual chants as its main contents. Unlike the preceding Brāhman. a texts, this text does not describe the details of the rituals and chants, but extends various philosophies including rebirth theories, in connection with, or apart from, the ritual and chants. It has a close relationship in texts and contents with the Chāndogya-Upanis. ad belonging to the Kauthuma-Rān. āyanīya school of the Sāmaveda. Though the JUB has been treated as an Upanis. ad inside the Jaiminīya school, it has not been acknowledged to be an Upanis. ad proper by the Vedāntins who, being outside the Vedic schools, worship the Upanis. ads as their highest authority, with the exception of the Kena-Upanis. ad portion (JUB 4.10.1–4 [4.18–21]). The purpose of this article is to elucidate the overall picture of the birth of the JUB as the first Upanis. ad in the history of Vedic texts. For this purpose, the following points will be discussed: 1. What is the main theme of the JUB? 2. Is the main theme of the JUB treated in its proceeding texts or not? 3. What is the background for the main theme of the JUB? 4. What kind of philosophies does the JUB develop from the main theme? 5. Why did the Jaiminīya school, not other schools, produce the JUB? 6. What are the gounds and criteria for judging the JUB as the first Upanis. ad
